From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: cm@mihalis.demon.co.uk (Chris Morgan) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 235751783 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: mihalis.demon.co.uk References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5ius80$1nr8@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com> NKSW39B@prodigy.com (Matthew Givens) writes: [SNIP] In fact, I often rough out algorythms in C > before implementing them in the Ada version. Why? Because I don't have > to think so much of the surface furnishings of Ada and can concentrate on > just the functionality. It would save a lot of time if I didn't have to > write the Ada version, wouldn't it? And I have prototyped things in Ada before rewriting them in C. This proves nothing except people are most productive in their language of fluency. > > And, before I get lambasted, I realize that other people don't agree with > that. That's okay, variety is a good thing, not a bad one. Of course I agree, but my point is it's reversible so hardly a valuable addition to the discussion. Regards, Chris -- Chris Morgan (cm@mihalis.demon.co.uk) http://www.mihalis.demon.co.uk/